Camouflage. I well remember a real Chinese Marxist dropped into a supposedly Marxist-dominated academic department here a few decades ago who was astounded. How they could reconcile all being wine collectors and snobs with their trumpeted socialist views he asked me? The answer is that their progressive views masked very regressive and antisocial behavior in general, and that was quite purposeful.
Please cite something or elaborate. This is a fair statement, but it's hardly an excuse in this context. I think you are stretching the meaning here. Marxism is not an ambiguous term.
Academic Marxism - or "Marxist Critique" - is really better referred to as dialectical materialism, historical materialism, or even more generally as Hegelian dialectics.
The political philosophies, namely socialism and communism, are a product of such thinking, but are not the same.
For instance, many feminists make heavy use of dialectics and are considered Marxist critique, but may not identify with e.g. communism.
Marx was first and foremost an analyst of class in history, and capitalism. That's Marxist analysis, which can be largely divorced from specific communist implications.
> It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?
??? Academically they're interesting questions to ask? Have you ever taken a class on Marxist critical theory or Marxist feminism or ...
A "marxist" is someone who uses Marx's method of analyzing class and capitalism to talk about whatever they want. One specific example is a Marxist critical theorist I know who likes to discuss the way class and capitalism as Marx discussed them arise in philosophical interpretations of modern literature.
Marxism is a political philosophy - one that has a lot of negative connotation in the United States due to its ties to communism, but Marxism is just philosophy so of course we'd want a space where academics can talk philosophy.
The elitism is something I've noticed, but espousing socialist views is purposeful to what end?
My best guess is that the behavior is an unconscious projection due to underlying narcissistic tendencies of people who are put on an intellectual pedastal...
I suppose it could be camouflage for being an asshole but that just seems too exhausting to be sustainable. And if they don't genuinely hold those beliefs, then what do they actually believe?
I would say that these abuses of power are intrinsic to having power. Also it's usually not the faculty vs the students. If you asked any single faculty member if they would rather
1.) Overwork their students, stretch them thin doing everything.
2.) Have more graduate students.
They would always pick #2. Professors are notoriously short-handed. They are typically not the ones who are outright abusing the power. It's usually the administration tying the professor's hands in these matters.
As a graduate student, your boss is usually the administration more than the professor - especially w.r.t. things a union would care about (workplace safety, wages, benefits, overwork...). Professors do not like to overwork their students - it's just they don't care if you are overworked.
> I do care if my students are overworked. Burnt out students produce shitty science.
Good point and apologies for the slight. I suppose a better way of putting it is that faculty are often ignorant of their students' issues / difficulties due to their busy schedules.
Absolutely. It's predatory lending in many cases. There is a choice on behalf of the students, but they are often completely ignorant about finance and the job market. The K-12 education system is failing to equip young people to understand and deal with the real world, so I see that as a root cause of these problems.
And what's the deal with universities pursuing stupendous multi-billion dollar endowments and never lowering tuition?
It's like a competition between universities to see who can get the biggest war chest. Lacking any market concerns they're just looking for some variable to maximize just to keep themselves occupied. It seems largely orthogonal to any social purpose a university is supposed to have.
Endowments are there to provide "passive income" for the university and not to be spent. One of the main things interest on an endowment funds is financial aid. Endowment size is a pretty decent proxy for how generous a financial aid program is.
Spending down an endowment could provide lots of free tuition... for a few years. Universities (like the Church) think in centuries.
Pretty much this. Whether or not my alma mater could go to a "need blind" admissions policy was entirely a function of whether or not the endowment was in the right shape.
IIRC they managed it in 2007 and then...in 2008...well, that went away.
It's probably the same phenomenon like unions who fight for worker rights are often very abusive employers themselves. I have seen this in Germany and in the US.
Is it really any different than the most obstreperously puritanical religious zealots harboring plenty of scandalous sin in their personal life? Whether our ideals have a God at the top or not, we aren't any more or less prone to psychologically projecting our failings.
It treats it's students no better. The student loan crisis is by far the biggest foot in Academia's mouth. Academia's politics don't apply to academia.
Academia is essentially a class of institutions and/or an industry concerned with higher education. Of course adjunct professors would be associated here.
Apparently you are missing the irony in such critical theory, post-structuralism, marxism, etc. having been so vigorously theorized that it's application was overlooked! The "system" here is quite late to blame itself and the brazen approach to doing so is
a bit humurous.
Are you seeking to divide academia into smaller parts; innocent ones and guilty others? Where have we seen that before?
Adjunct professors are notoriously overworked by the rest of "Academia"... they're like the H1B workers in tech.
Face it, the entire system probably needs an overhaul but isn't governed by some sort of "evil overmind". Small regulatory or incentive-based changes or movements like unionization will probably cause the system to re-adjust.
You are misunderstood about my point. I do not assume any authoritarian presence.
I guess it's just textbook components of neo-liberalism: priorities which lead to bloated administration and marketing initiatives.
I agree unionizing is a good solution. One would think the experts would have acted sooner; that's all. The trajectory has been obvious for a very long time.
By Academia's politics I am referring to the faculty'sgeneral leftist views, which I myself widely share.
By academia I mean the whole thing.
The faculty has maintained these these acclaimed leftist views for many decades, sat back and drank Kool-Aid while the administration took on the bloat. They were too busy climbing the ladder and forgot to critique it; no better than than the rest of the average neo-liberals.
Student debt swallowed at least 2 generations whole while the faculty did nothing. They didn't have to. But, they'll be the first to commend a proletariat revolution which remains a safe enough distance from their job. I cannot help notice the hypocrisy here.